Do you think that people who own a Tesla are more likely to look the other way when it comes to quality issues. That people like Musk, the idea of a better future, technology, that they would be willing to lie on the CR survey, just to drive a point to all the naysayers. Then you also assume as a Tesla owner you are a stock holder of Tesla. Who is going to say negative things about Tesla when it's going to hit your pocket.
No more than Toyota owners would lie about "reliability" on a CR survey just to drive a point.. No more than Toyota owners and stockholders would say negative things about Toyota, because it's going to hit their pocket. Your line of reasoning shows that you not only have a bias, but it is illogical and irrational.
Easy there. Let’s not get personal. Bisco has been around these boards a good long time. Anyone who has kept up with a tiny percentage of his postings would agree he is quite science aligned. Check out his posts in the environmental section, for example.
Toyota stock is steady and does not fluctuate. Tesla stock has room for growth, so we have been told.
I'm tired of the the assumption that Model 3 repairs will be as costly as Model S. The sheer number of 3s on the road should push the cost of parts/repairs downward.
Are Lexus CT repairs as costly as a LS, are Mercedes C class repairs as costly as an S class, is a BMW 3 as costly as 7 series to repair? Pretty much yes, a luxury car costs! Tesla is a luxury car, and it will remain as a luxury car manufacture. You gotta pay to play.
This kind of mania also makes my eyes roll and isn't the way to broaden the Tesla fanclub. Higher CO2 levels (than we have today even) didn't kill the planet before. Energy independence, the ability to use one's own independent power station, and less air pollution are much more convincing arguments than this constant guilt-tripping/browbeating (under the fallacious appeal to authority, "because science!").
The baseline car is still $35k, so I'll be ignoring your prognostications since they haven't been all that accurate (I.E. Your Mirai fanaticism because Toyota! has not been forgotten).
The Mirai is not out by a long shot. Hydrogen is still viable. The trucking industry has interest in it as well as mass transportation. Do U truly believe the oil industry, Shell, Exxon, Texaco etc. are going to not eventually back Hydrogen in the near future, to go up against Electric cars. Many car manufactures are still investing into Hydrogen.
No doubt. But then is it okay to call Tesla enthusiasts on the Tesla sub-forum "fanboys" and "drinking the Kool Aid" and not think it is personal? I've been on Prius Chat for about three years now and @bisco knows who I am and it is personal but in a friendly way. Hey @bisco, I will be in Boston next November 10, you gonna buy me lunch since you aren't spending your money on a model 3? What about Legal Seafood?
Yes, I am manic about it. Either we, as a population, do this proactively on our own or we will have government stepping in and forcing us to do it at an even higher cost. I would rather be proactive..............and manic.
Budweiser Beer recently order 800 Hydrogen trucks from Nikoli where as they only order 40 Tesla trucks. Nikoli will be installing 700 Hydrogen refueling stations along the routes most traveled by Budweiser trucks. These stations will be open to all Hydrogen vehicles.
They already have their tendrils entangled with fracking, so they don't need it. H2O isn't viable for personal transport without beaucoup money. Wait and see. Let these other dinosaur car manufacturers fight the rising (battery) tide.
Interesting, thanks. But here is the problem: For those of you new to the topic, fuel cell EVs are electric drive vehicles, just like their battery-operated cousins. The main difference is that battery vehicles take time to charge up, while fuel cell EVs can be fueled up in a matter of minutes, just like a gas-powered car. Until battery technology improves, fuel cell EVs also benefit from longer range and more power, which explains why some manufacturers are focusing on the SUV and long distance truck markets for fuel cell EVs. Of course, there’s a catch. Just a few years ago, it was difficult to find public charging stations to recharge battery EVs. Likewise, public hydrogen fueling stations are practically non-existent outside of California and a few other states. Hydrogen fuel stations are expensive, and it’s difficult to convince investors to foot the bill unless they’re confident that people will use them. However, very few people will buy fuel cell EVs until they are confident that they can refuel conveniently. But on the other hand: In a 2006 Scientific American article I wrote with advanced-hybrid guru Andy Frank, we explain that “The entire process of electrolysis, transportation, pumping and fuel-cell conversion would leave only about 20 to 25 percent of the original zero-carbon electricity to drive the motor.” But in an EV or plug-in hybrid, “the process of electricity transmission, charging an onboard battery and discharging the battery would leave 75 to 80 percent of the original electricity to drive the motor.” So the hydrogen car is more like one third as efficient as the EV. Put in more basic terms, the plug-in or EV “should be able to travel three to four times farther on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle could”! It will take years of development to prove whether the FCEV concept is viable or not. I hope it works out. In the meantime, battery technology is improving on a monthly basis in cost, charging efficiency, and size.
2016.......this is pretty old. Have you researched anything recent on Hydrogen. There are 37 Hydrogen stations in California. With Nokli adding 700 stations across the USA and I am sure others will start to invest as well. Hydrogen makes sense to the trucking industry.
